Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.
I have no problem with the "idea of laws on the books", I may, however, have a problem with how they are created or enforced. My whole argument is to demonstrate that the use of government or regulations will lead to more environmental harm, fraud and unsafe labor practices. The exact opposite of what they aim to prevent.
This may be true for some, but it is demonstrably false for many others. Air quality, water quality, etc, have gotten better just about everywhere in the US since the creation of the EPA. My home town uses oxygenated fuel in the winter, by mandate, because it pollutes less - the air quality has gone from not being able to see more than two blocks in the winter, to me never have known this was a problem becuase I've only been born after it took effect.
So if that's your argument, it's not true. There are definitely corrupt regulations on the books, and regulations which do more harm than good, but that does not say that
all regulations, by virtue of their genesis, are bad and do more harm than good.
I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.
You didn't say it exactly, but it's precisely what is implied from your argument. You said that Walmart (or anyone) underselling a competitor to put them out of business is a problem. What kind of regulation would be proposed to stop this from occuring other than something that ultimately limits the price at which they sale their goods? Also, why do you bring up Wal-marts employee track record, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but you keep changing the topic.
My argument is to point to real world example, examples we have when the market has some regulations enforced upon it, to show you the inclination and desire some big companies have, and how that desire wouldn't go away without the government. I bring up employee practices because this is an area where are there are labor laws and regulations on the books, which certainly effects a companies bottom line. Having regulations in place regarding these issues is beneficial to employees, and disliked by employers. We see that in Walmart, we see that in numerous other companies, we see that historically in a massive level. You would have these done away with, because you argue that the free-market would do better - when in fact, the free-market would probably create worse conditions for workers and employees.
I'm bringing up examples to show how you're theory is inadequate. By showing how a company can create a monopoly in a market ("free" or not), what kind of forces they would use, forces which are not accounted for in your theory of quality and customer safety, I am not at the same time proposing that we solve this problem with the government. That's a huge leap and assumption on your part.